From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DED7315AE for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:28:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51CAE89B for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:28:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 07:28:26 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Dmitry Vyukov Message-ID: <20190827142826.GD26530@linux.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org References: <20190826230206.GC28066@mit.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: Joel Fernandes , Barret Rhoden , ksummit , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jonathan Nieder , Tomasz Figa , Han-Wen Nienhuys , Theodore Tso , David Rientjes , Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Allowing something Change-Id (or something like it) in kernel commits List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 06:30:11AM -0700, Dmitry Vyukov via Ksummit-discuss wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 12:33 AM Geert Uytterhoeven > wrote: > > > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:30 AM Dmitry Vyukov via Ksummit-discuss > > wrote: > > > A somewhat related point re UUID/Change-ID. > > > For syzbot (or any other bug tracking system) we want to associate > > > bugs with fixes. It turned out there is no good identity of a change > > > that we could use. Commit hash is an obvious first thing to consider, > > > but (1) it changes in linux-next, (2) sometimes the change is not > > > committed yet when we do the association, (3) it is different when > > > backported to LTS (so not possible to say if a fix is in that stable > > > tree or not). > > > > For (3): LTS commits have "commit upstream" in their description > > (perhaps some have "cherry picked from commit "?). > > A change identification scheme would need to solve all of these. E.g. > non-committed changes look more problematic for anything that uses > commit hashes... > > > > We decided to use commit subject, which works to some degree, but also > > > has problems: (1) not necessary unique, (2) sometimes people change > > > subject during backporting (e.g. prepend some prefix), (3) has all the > > > same problems of email clients messing with text (e.g. I can't issue > > > #syz fix command for loo long commit subjects with my email client). > > > Some real UUID/Change-ID would solve all of these problems by giving > > > us capability to refer to changes rather than a commit in a particular > > > tree only. > > > > "git patch-id --stable " may help, too. > > > > For quick lookups, you need to generate/append to an index regularly. > > It's not me, it's everybody ;) > If I am reading git help correctly, this won't handle changes with > more than 1 version. Also maintainers will be prohibited from doing > any changed to patches during commit. Or we are required to add more Link: tags or other annotations describing what we changed and why. Thanx, Paul